Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday April 30, 2011 @11:22PM
from the holy-moley dept.

MBC1977 writes with this eyebrow-raising news from CNN: "'The Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced Friday that [Amar] Bose, the 81-year-old founder of the sound system company that bears his name, has donated the majority of Bose Corp.'s stock to the school.'
Very cool indeed!"

I genuinely hope that this is possible. It would be great to have a company like Bose, which has an Apple-like (albeit a bit worse) reputation in the consumer audio world, start producing decent systems - the current pricing structure could definitely support that.

Just imagine - the tards buying BOSE because it says BOSE on it might actually get some decent sound for their money, and better sound makes the world a better place. Ever been to visit a friend for a few days and realized that you'd be without de

You probably didn't mean anything deep by it, but I find the choice to lump universities under the broad heading of 'charity' an interesting one. Although I think there's little better use for one's money than promoting education, my time spent at a (fairly well-regarded) American university seemed (to my godless commie foreign eyes) a surprisingly commercialised experience. It's clear just from looking at the campus that an awful lot of money is given back by alumni, and this action by Bose further confirms it, but I don't think I could ever get over the voice in the back of my head saying "What about all those times you tried to screw me out of every penny I didn't have?".

I applaud the efforts of people like Bose in giving something back, and I know this is something of a digression. It just seems odd, from my external perspective, that people are happy giving such vast gifts to organisations that treat their students in such a mercenary manner; or, I suppose, that organisations receiving such vast gifts still feel the need to squeeze their students so much...

There are many ways to look at a university. It's about research, it's about federal funding, it's about raising money from alumni, it's about patent licensing and athletics, it's about recruiting faculty, promoting faculty, about running a big physical plant, internet pipes, etc. etc. Oh, and there are students, too. Teaching is just one of many things that happen there, not the most visible - even at places that claim to emphasize the student experience. Students do get to pay up to around $200K for t

To get the "message" that they are losing money on every students, Universities pull accounting tricks worthy of Hollywood. They take all of their expenses, including research and administrative related ones on the one hand, they take what students pay on the other, totally ignoring donations, and they say, "eh, student tuition is only one third of our income, therefore student are actually not paying much at all".

In reality, some studies have shown that top-level college education really costs no more than about $40k per year per student for engineering, about $80k for medicine, and sometimes as lows as $10k for maths or philosophy. Law is also cheap. If students pay $200k over 4 years, they are totally covering that. In most of Europe, students typically pay less than $10k per year, sometimes much less. Oxford and Cambridge charge about $15k per year. They seem to be doing quite well nonetheless. As it was reported here not so long ago, even top-level US-universities pay their professors a relative pittance compared with other professionals with similar qualifications.

If universities stopped admitting, they would immediately lose 1/3 of their funding, and so would have to let go of a corresponding share of their staff. They would lose their status and soon all of their donations, losing another 1/3, later they would lose all of their network and influence obtained through alumni, professors would not be needed for teaching and soon the place would be an empty, nearly pointless shell. That doesn't sound like being better off financially.

The morals is that Universities are there for teaching, and students are at the very center of their mission. Research and whatnot is indeed nice, but it is there to attract funding and top-level researcher, ensuring the quality of the teaching because beginner teachers want to join their teams and so work hard to get tenure. A few top-level researchers are also dedicated and excellent teachers, which is very nice from the university point of view, because they get to write the classical textbooks on their field, ensuring more revenues. Students and alumni are not the only teaching-related income universities get. There are many other things to say, but I'll stop.

However, saying that universities would be better off without students is utter bollocks, to be polite.

Colleges and universities are a racket. Few other industries, as a whole, have experienced the same kind of wholesale constant increase in funds like the education market.

Well, except for the defense industry, but that's another story.

To get back on topic, donating voting shares to MIT would have been a very interesting opportunity for students -- they would get to run the company, and learn all about the real-world application of technology. Alas, with dividends only, I'm not sure there's as much education going on as there could have been.

I totally agree. My wife and I both graduated with BA's from Christian colleges. She had the typical college finance experience, with the school squeezing every penny that they could out of her, and then sending letters to her (probably for the rest of her life) asking for donations. She liked the school otherwise, but that (although typical) was/is irksome.

I, on the other hand, went to Moody Bible Institute [moody.edu]. It is a college that aims to prepare people to do full-time Christian ministry. Since most of these graduates wind up in fields that don't have great earning potential, they don't charge tuition. I'll repeat that: they don't charge tuition. It's not an easy school to get in to, (it's certainly not for everyone) and it is by no means perfect, but it was the right fit for me. (I'm a missionary, but I'm up late tonight doing some open source coding and getting distracted by Slashdot.) Anyway, Moody avoids charging tuition by having a profitable publishing house, as well as a radio station and broadcast media company. All of the profits that they turn from these (as well as some hefty donations) are what keep the financial wheels turning at the school. When I graduated in 2005, they estimated that for my graduating class, the waived tuition amounted to a $78,000 scholarship per graduating student.

I receive letters occasionally from Moody asking for donations, and these are MUCH more easy for me to stomach. I don't have much in the way of spare money at the moment, but if/when I have the means, supporting Moody is something I'd like to do. I appreciate my education, and the fact that I could get through it without taking out ANY student loans, and I'd love to help present that opportunity to others if at all possible.

Anyway, I realize that I'm on a tangent, but I think that Moody Bible Institute is as close to a true non-profit as I've seen any university be.

My brother was pondering going there (although he wound up going to Northwestern College instead). I recall my dad saying, after visiting the campus with my brother, that it was in a rough neighborhood. Was it all that bad, in your experience? Just curious.

I think someone pursuing missionary work probably has too much of a conscience to get rich on a "ministry business". Like saying that since the mob bosses who control sanitation in some Italian cities are rich, garbage disposal is a good career path.

Yeah my high school sweetheart wanted me to go to Biola with her. I was pretty indifferent about it, so I applied and got in. We broke up not too long after that. I refused to pay $120k for 4 years of education and she got pissed. I went to a state school and walked away spending about $30k after cost of living.

It makes more sense if you weigh the substantial tuition fees against what you get out of a university like MIT in terms of knowledge and the capacity to be successful. The people you speak of, Bose being an example, think the balance tilts towards the latter and try to even it out by giving back to the system. I find it admirable.

A fair point, and it is admirable, but it's perhaps worth clarifying that I wasn't only referring to tuition (substantial though it is, the aforementioned godless commie government helped me out a lot in that regard) - I can't imagine living with a commercial loan of that size like so many Americans do, but it's straightforward and clear, it's like the sticker price on the education one receives.

The bit that was unexpected, the bit that really made me think "These guys are in it for the money", was the (sometimes petty, sometimes substantial) hidden costs enforced by university policies. All first years had to live on campus, in housing with rents a good 40%+ above other local options. Many housing plans came with mandatory pre-paid meal plans: distinctly average cafeteria food at rates that work out to $12/meal; an effort to donate all unused pre-pay meals to charity was deemed too costly to implement. Student run societies needed to go through bureaucratic approval in order to purchase food for events from any sources other than the university's private catering contractor. Not only did courses require $70+ textbooks, the campus book store tended to sell them at rates a good 20% higher than Amazon.

It's beginning to sound like I had a real problem with the place, and that's absolutely not the case. I learned a huge amount and there were parts of the American system that I would love to see adopted in England. It's just jarring to go in expecting a public service organisation, albeit one with a significant up-front cost, and instead find the administration to be treating you as a captive audience of customers.

I'm pretty sure you will find that the average MIT graduate is not nearly as successful as Bose. Sure, they'll earn money, but I don't see how some of it has to be channelled back to their alma mater. People make their own success and money, college education is only a part of it. College is only 4 years, what about all the 12 years of school before? Don't they deserve any kudos?

Just curious, what school did you go to? My experience from friends at wide range of schools is that there are a lot of mid-tier American schools which do make an effort to squeeze their students dry, but the schools at the very top tend to be wealthy enough (thanks to alumni donations) that they can afford to have very generous financial aid policies. MIT in particular is one of only six American schools that do need-blind admissions for all students and which guarantee to meet full financial need (the oth

MIT is a wonderful place. I almost went there in the early 2000s before opting for a local school that was 7th in engineering (my preferred fields). They were far more willing to work with me on the tuition rates than the school I did choose and MIT was 4 times more expensive at the time. Right off the top MIT gave a half-tuition credit to those they sought out (as to those that simply applied) and then there was further reward if you succeeded. MIT is not a private school and operates largely for the good of humanity. Comparing your local college experience to MIT is really unfair. The only places I can think of that compete are places like Cal Poly Tech and a few other Tech schools in the US.
Giving the stock to MIT means they'll have a healthy steady source of income that hopefully will enable them to continue to research when politics pressure their research funds.
PS: On the subject of tuition the US has relatively high tuition because schools don't get the kind of funding they need from the state and private schools though non-profit in most cases need to have an excess to invest and protect against the future. Non-profit doesn't mean sum-zero, it means there is no dividend to pay out to trustees and they are limited in their total profits. State colleges by comparison are much cheaper and would be free if the state gave the proper kind of funding they deserved.

I've only listened to one of those once or twice, and I thought it sounded ok. However, for $500, you could have an entry level component system (skimp on the receiver, not on the speakers). Heck, I bet you could rival the sound quality with a good pair of computer speakers (with sub) plugged into the headphone-out of a decent clock-radio-CD player. That should cost well under $500.

Of course, aesthetics and size matter to some, and a Bose system certainly beats computer speakers. Of course, you can alway

And that's the key bit right there. There's nothing good about Bose's sound. Their high end systems lack midrange and any form of soundstage instead option for a system that can be barely seen. Pretty much every other audio company can beat the quality of a Bose system, but you end up with some large boxes in the living room.

Personally if the budget can stretch I'd much prefer a system from the likes of Bang and Olufsen who don't try to make the system disappear but rather make it a part of the design of th

The Beolab 5 like all omnidirectional speakers can generate a very pleasing sound effect. The Beolab 5 also uses some nice components. HOWEVER there are some fundamental flaws to the design that make it unsuitable for critical music reproduction. In particular this design is subject to what is known as the "flanging effect" that makes creation of a good stereo image impossible because of the upper and lower discs. It is an interference or comb-filter in the audio spectrum. These speakers also have a dip in

I worked at B&O a couple of years ago (that touchscreen remote? I worked on that) and during my stay there I listened to more music on more stereos that I would have imagined. B&W, obviously and Dynaudio was well-represented, being a Danish company and all that.

The BL5s consistently sounded the best to me when compared to similarly-priced speakers when playing music I'd listened to hundreds of times and knew extremely well. It was subjected to endless listening panels during development and various

At least B&O are open about the sound/picture quality of their products. They admit they do not sound/look the best for the money, but you pay for the nice design and extras like motorised TV stands and they self calibrate etc.

Take a look at anything from Tivoli audio like the Model One. They have a downfiring port so placing them on a wooden table helps even more. But I was absolutely blown away by how much better they sound and look (retro) than the Bose crap.

Yes, audiophiles all love to argue about Bose's shortcoming with audio because their systems are greatly overpriced. I personally consider myself an audiophile, and I have no issue with Bose, although I wouldn't buy it as the system for my home theater / audio rig. It's just too damn expensive for the sound you're getting.
Guarantee you could find 20 different opinions of what is wrong with Boses sound from audiophiles, all different.

Nope.That was a HUGE thing in the late 80s and early 90s. There were tons of Cd "treatments" talked about and sold to make CDs sound better... from green sharpies with a special notch cut out to fit the CD, to tales of using Armor All on discs.

NOT just run of the mill cranks either. Magazines such as Stereophile and others promoted these idiotic ideas as true and screamed at anyone who dared point out that their claims of "bit flutter" were idiotic.

Yes, my impression of Bose is mediocre sound with high end price. It works, but it sure isn't the awesomeness their advertising makes it out to be.

I find putting bass speakers on a hard surface really helps. Had the subwoofer of a cheap 5.1 system (not Bose) on a carpeted floor, and all I did was slide some scrap plywood (about 3x4 ft) under it. Did wonders for clarity and sound projection. Can feel the board vibrating when you rest a hand on it. Haven't stumbled over an easy way to improve the highe

be careful here. when people say audiophile today they mean the religious zealot variety.. you should have a problem with bose. objectively speaking, their products do not offer good value for the money. either the same sound can be purchased for 1/10th the price (3200$ lifestyle vs $320 hometheater-in-a-box systems from decent brands), or you can do a lot better for the price point asked. 3200$ buys you a very nice system. the fact is that no matter how much one 'engineers' things, it's impossible for s

Bose make some very good speaker systems. They also make some quite average-sounding speaker systems. They are all overpriced for what they deliver though, but the marketing behind them, and the sleek industrial design, makes sales for them.

Some of the high-end Bose stuff is quite good. Their midrange stuff is probably what was being referred to when mentioning no midrange.

Bose's more popular systems are the small coffee-cup sized satellite speakers and a large subwoofer. The satellites are great at produci

I"m sure it's not worth the money. I can't speak for their pro stuff, but the consumer stuff is garbage, especially for the money.

The satellites are great at producing high frequency sounds

no.. modern tweeter designs in the last 15 years can handle 20-25khz (even higher on some systems). the current bose designs still use treated paper cones like speakers did in the 1970s. the best paper cone tweeters peak at 16khz or so. the cheap $0.50 drivers in the satellites are hardly the best.

and the sub can generally put out more than enough bass for the system,

no. it's a terrible design. the sub isnt' even really a sub because it can't repro

It depends upon the model. Speaking of speaker systems only, some used resonance to produce boomy base to impress the rubes, leaving inadequate response at deep base and low-mids.

Other speakers, particularly the long-time top-of-the-line 901s, used active compensation to extend the somewhat flat range as far to the high and low as practical. Bose used 9 cheap 5" drivers in each 901, with the result that decent response up to 20 kHz was impossible, as was low distortion and good response at 20 Hz. Due to the complication of having all those drivers and the active compensation box, A.G.Bose claimed (in the class he taught) that the profit margin on the 901s was actually quite small, and the claim seems almost reasonable to me.

Professional speaker designers at more reputable firms joke that Bose's slogan "better sound through research" should read "better sales through advertising".

The fact is that speakers that sound good in isolation appeal to large numbers of uncritical listeners, and that's where Bose does well. A competent critical listener, or someone in a position to A-B against similarly priced reputable brands, will find Bose lacking.

some are referring to the large bose systems like the 901s.. others are referring to the satellite systems.

just because something makes you happy doesn't mean it isn't stupid or better according to objective measurement. if blowing lots of money on mediocre technology in nice shiny plastic boxes turns you on, so be it. it's still a stupid decision.

As a bit of trivia, Caltech alum Bill Gross actually ended up founding GNP Audio [gnpaudiovideo.com] based on an engineering project he did as a student. He later went on to co-found, like, a gajillion other companies [idealab.com].

Imho, active noise canceling is one thing Bose is actually good at. I've used their QC-2, QC-15 and X aviation headset, as well as active sets from Sennheiser, Lightspeeed and David Clark. I prefer the QC-15 for personal use and the lightspeed in the airplane (though I hear the new bose aviation headset is even better, I have not been able to try one yet).

MIT has done wonderful things for the world. As have many academic institutions. But this is as good a time as any to note that making large donations to an elite academic institution is a pretty ineffective way to use your money.

MIT is already well funded, and while this money may go to fund additional research, it may also just lead to a lot of pretty buildings going up. If you have the opportunity to donate, why not donate to a school that will use the money to dramatically increase the number of students it educates, or to a charity that sees the money directed into existing research initiatives that need it.

I'm sure the new Bose facilities will be very nice and the Bose family will have no problem getting into MIT for the next few generations. Nonetheless, it seems like a bit of a waste.

Investing the money in a venture capital fund would be far better for people, including MIT students. Venture capital funds startup companies so those MIT grads and graduates of other Universities can actually get jobs using the knowledge they learned in school.

Philanthropy is great, but it spends wealth rather than creating it. (Giving to MIT is more of a gray area in between though.) Venture investments can help the next Bose.

MIT is already well funded, and while this money may go to fund additional research, it may also just lead to a lot of pretty buildings going up.

Note that he's donated it in such a way that they get dividends, but can't sell the stock. The dividends are unlikely to be large enough to fund pretty new buildings, but may be enough to fund a few scholarships.

But do MIT students represent the best candidate for scholarships? My understanding is that the undergraduate population there is already pretty well taken care of in terms of need. By the time you have the credentials to get into MIT, you're either impressive enough to get a scholarship (from someone) or you're going to take loans --- knowing that in the final analysis, an engineering career driven by an MIT degree makes them a good risk.

. If you have the opportunity to donate, why not donate to a school that will use the money to dramatically increase the number of students it educates, or to a charity that sees the money directed into existing research initiatives that need it.

All schools get donations but MIT has done a lot better than the rest. This suggests that MIT is better at allocating money than other mediocre schools. So from a perfectly rational perspective giving money to the most effective organization makes a lot of sense.

Religious organisations almost invariably promote dogma over observable evidence - since you chose to bring up the Vatican as an example, perhaps you'd care to explain how their anti-condom policy, the history of misinformation surrounding it, and the increased incidence of AIDS for which it is partially responsible, is intellectually justifiable?

True story: An elderly gentleman walked into an electronics store in Toronto looking to buy speakers. The salesman showed him a couple of different models. The customer pointed at another set on the shelves and asked about them. The salesman said "Oh, those are Bose, they're crap." The customer was Amar Bose.

While the bumper sticker Bose trashing you've been hearing here is pretty much accurate, if you read serious reviews you'll find that the universal gripe with Bose isn't really their sound but their value. They don't sound bad so much as they sound just as good as equipment costing a third as much money, and they sound considerably worse than almost anything else you could buy at the same inflated price. So you're suggestion that they sound damn good at a mid range price seems like you haven't done much comparison listening. You basically hit a bullseye on Bose greatest weakness as a product and called it a strength. Spend 5 minutes with Google "best speakers for $X" where X is what you spent on those over priced Bose speakers and you'll find a giant pile of simultaneously better and cheaper equipment. Take the $350 you spent on pretty much anything Bose and get some Audioengine A5's instead.

Everyone is bad mouthing Bose, but they have damn good sound at a mid range price. All my friends love my little Bose system in my kitchen.

May I suggest you actually go and do a bit of listening, not to opinions but actual system. The problem your statement is that they don't even remotely make damn good sound. Their high end system has no midrange, destroys soundstaging, and sounds like the retarded echo effects mimicking stadiums or cinemas that you can enable in Realtek Audio Manager on pretty much every computer.

Bose is aesthetically pleasing, but way overpriced garbage in terms of any real sound quality. (not being able to make a duff duff sound from a small system does not a high quality system make), and I far prefer the look and sound of the Tivoli Model One in my dining room and have change left over:-)

Yeah, my PC speakers cost about $150. I listen to music on a set of Grado SR-80 cans that list at $90. If I need to travel, well I got as a gift a pair of Sennheiser PX-360s that run to slightly over a hundred bucks. I am an audiophile in the sense that I enjoy listening to music, and I listen to it on equipment that reproduces it to higher fidelity than the cheapest consumer stuff out there. Sure, I could spend more money, and get myself a proper DAC, a vacuum-tube headphone amp, some high-end headphones,

Donations to MIT are so passé. Why not pick a random fast talking black kid from the Cambridge streets and
give him that company CEO's job and house? Also, cancel all the previous CEO's credit cards and boot him out onto the street.

Why not pick a random fast talking black kid from the Cambridge streets and give him that company CEO's job and house?

The first week I lived in Cambridge my bicycle, locked to a rack at MIT, was stolen. In all likelihood a kid like the one you described committed that crime. Put him in the CEO position, and he'll be immensely corrupt and probably destroy the company. That's why not.

Having built my own speaker system, I came to realize that the problem with speaker design is to get good sound into a small and shippable product. If you can use your entire house, and many elements, it is trivial to get good sound. For example, many elements covering a wall, each with little effect, is a great subwoofer. After that measure current vs. voltage over the elements to determine element dynamics (Similar to algorithm that controls brushless motors), and feed that back as a correction to the amp

I am inclined to agree with that. There are a lot of great universities out there. MIT and Harvard are among the ones with enormous endowments that still get hundreds of millions in donor cash that could probably be put to better use at schools with less name recognition.

I'm a white male starting my PhD in the fall and I'm getting more money from the state of Arkansas than a foreigner would because I'm an Arkansas resident. I also had my undergrad degree fully funded by a state scholarship (to the tune of around $80,000). My university is practically begging locals to pursue a PhD. My foreign colleagues generally have to pay full retail and don't get the federally backed student loans my wife is relying on for her AuD. By the time I finish my PhD, it's looking like my state will have paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 to educate me. I'm thankful for that and plan on living in Little Rock for the rest of my life so my taxes can help future students.

"His father, Noni Gopal Bose, was a Bengali freedom revolutionary,[3] who having been imprisoned for his political activities, fled Calcutta in the 1920s in order to avoid further prosecution by the British colonial police."

Maybe if "American" students started fighting for what they believe instead of demanding that everything be given to them they would find it easier to get a PhD.

I think you'll find that most American universities do primarily fund American students. I did my PhD in a UK university, but I spent three months in a US university on a collaboration, and from what people said it seems like the funding situation is pretty similar, although not quite the same:

In the UK, the university charges tuition fees for PhD students. These have two rates, one for EU citizens (government subsidised) and one for everyone else (full price). This covers lab space, lecturer time, and so on - the university skims about 50% off before it gets to the department, to cover general university overheads. Most PhD student places for EU citizens come with a grant, either from a government grant, an industrial partnership, a charitable trust, or the university itself. This covers all of the tuition fees, travel expenses, and provides a stipend (tax free income). I don't even know exactly what my tuition fees were - they were paid from the grant and I never saw the bill - while my colleagues from Malaysia (for example) were having to pay a huge amount every year. I was paid a stipend which worked out to about the same as an entry level graduate salary after tax, and claimed around £10K or so in travel expenses, while they had to pay for everything.

One of the reasons why the tuition fees were so high for foreign students was that this money was used to subsidise other PhD places. For every 2-3 non-EU students we got, the university could afford to fund another PhD. This is why you see so many foreign students - the UK and USA are both regarded as prestigious places to do a PhD in much of Asia, so our universities encourage them to apply. Once they're here, the universities charge them a lot and use this to subsidise everyone else. Send them all back home, and you'll see a lot fewer PhD places available for locals.